Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

What the science says...

The notion that the CO2 effect is 'saturated' is based on a misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works.

Climate Myth...

CO2 effect is saturated
"Each unit of CO2 you put into the atmosphere has less and less of a warming impact. Once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, additional input of CO2 will not really have any major impact. It's like putting insulation in your attic. They give a recommended amount and after that you can stack the insulation up to the roof and it's going to have no impact." (Marc Morano, as quoted by Steve Eliot)

The mistaken idea that the Greenhouse Effect is 'saturated', that adding more CO2 will have virtually no effect, is based on a simple misunderstanding of how the Greenhouse Effect works.

The myth goes something like this:

CO2 absorbs nearly all the Infrared (heat) radiation leaving the Earth's surface that it can absorb. True!

Therefore adding more CO2 won't absorb much more IR radiation at the surface. True!

Therefore adding more CO2 can't cause more warming. FALSE!!!

Here's why; it ignores the very simplest arithmetic.

If the air is only absorbing heat from the surface then the air should just keep getting hotter and hotter. By now the Earth should be a cinder from all that absorbed heat. But not too surprisingly, it isn't! What are we missing?

The air doesn't just absorb heat, it also loses it as well! The atmosphere isn't just absorbing IR Radiation (heat) from the surface. It is also radiating IR Radiation (heat) to Space. If these two heat flows are in balance, the atmosphere doesn't warm or cool - it stays the same.

Lets think about a simple analogy:

We have a water tank. A pump is adding water to the tank at, perhaps, 100 litres per minute. And an outlet pipe is letting water drain out of the tank at 100 litres per minute. What is happening to the water level in the tank? It is remaining steady because the flows into and out of the tank are the same. In our analogy the pump adding water is the absorption of heat by the atmosphere; the water flowing from the outlet pipe is the heat being radiated out to space. And the volume of water inside the tank is the amount of heat in the atmosphere.

What might we do to increase the water level in the tank?

We might increase the speed of the pump that is adding water to the tank. That would raise the water level. But if the pump is already running at nearly its top speed, I can't add water any faster. That would fit the 'It's Saturated' claim: the pump can't run much faster just as the atmosphere can't absorb the Sun's heat any faster

But what if we restricted the outlet, so that it was harder for water to get out of the tank? The same amount of water is flowing in but less is flowing out. So the water level in the tank will rise. We can change the water level in our tank without changing how much water is flowing in, by changing how much water is flowing out.

Similarly we can change how much heat there is in the atmosphere by restricting how much heat leaves the atmosphere rather than by increasing how much is being absorbed by the atmosphere.

This is how the Greenhouse Effect works. The Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour absorb most of the heat radiation leaving the Earth's surface. Then their concentration determines how much heat escapes from the top of the atmosphere to space. It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens down here near the surface.

So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.

(OK, I'm Australian so this image appeals to me)

So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.

Comments

fred.steffen... I did a quick google on the guy who apparently wrote the article for Goddard's blog. He says his name is Mike Sanicola, and he states that he is a "professional IR astronomer." In my google search I came up with this person who also checked into Sanicola's credentials. He says:

"Finally, I'm an astronomer and been around quite a while, and I've never heard of Mike Sanicola so I did a little checking. He is not in the American Astronomical Association directory (very unusual for a professional U.S. astronomer), nor is he one of the 10,727 astronomers worldwide listed in the International Astronomical Union (IAU) directory of professional astronomers. The link associated with his name in Goddard's post takes you to the GE (yes, that's General Electric) home page, where there is absolutely no mention of a Mike Sanicola. There are *no* papers in the Astrophysics Data System by anyone named "Sanicola", and this source indexes all papers that appear in the significant astronomy journals and conference proceedings. A Google search finds no reference to a Mike Sanicola, astronomer, other than to the same Steve Goddard article that Ajax quotes. I don't think Mike Sanicola exists, or if he does, he is not a professional astronomer."

So, I don't know who this guy actually is but he's clearly not the expert he claims to be.

fred.steffen: I don't know what you mean by radiative forcing not fitting as a model. Nor do I know what other model you claim is used by most climate models, so please explain.

A response to that article you linked does a good job debunking that article, including the nonexistence of the supposed IR astronomer. However, I'd steer clear of its link to WUWT. Instead click the link on the Pierrehumbert article. For a more accessible explanation, see the Skeptical Science post "How Do We Know More CO2 Is Causing Warming?"--first watch the video at the bottom, then read the Basic tabbed pane, then the Intermediate tabbed pane, then the Advanced one.

Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole.

So whoever he is, he doesn't seem to understand the earths emission spectrum (as a pseudo-black body) but appears to think the earth should emit at a single frequency for each "parcel" of the surface that is at a particular temperature.

Fred - so you would happily breath air with 0.04% Hydrogen Cyanide? Trying to dismiss an effect because it is a small number with without doing the maths to see if what effect it really has is more like an argument from Personal Incredulity. Does it sound better if you say the CO2 makes up 60% of the radiatively active gases in the atmosphere?

Also, you suggest experiments to see the effect of CO2 - but this kind of thing has already been done. See the Advanced tab of Tom Dayton's link for the papes. The effect of CO2 on incoming radiation has been measured from the surface and also the effect on outgoing from satellite. Both measurements agree with theoretical model to a very high degree of precision. A direct measurement has also been achieved. See here.

1) when you say "as a model, [radiative forcing is] not fitting", the model from which radiative forcing is derived are Line By Line (LBL) or broadband radiative models. The Line By Line refers to the fact that they calculate atmospheric transmission and emission for each wave number (a measure of frequency) seperately, giving a very fine resolution of radiative transfer. Typically they also divide the amtosphere into about twenty layers or so, calculating in each direction (up or down) the radiation entering, the radiation absorbed and the radiation emitted based on the atmospheric composition at that layer. As of 1969, they produced results with this sort of accuracy:

One such model whose accuracy across a wide range of surface conditions, temperatures and latitudes was studied in 2008 showed the following scatter plot vs observations for 134,862 observations:

If you are not familiar with scatter plots, they are plots of the observed value (CERES OLR) with the model predicted value, with perfect accuracy of prediction meaning the observations sit on the black line shown. The accuracy shown here is absolutely astonishing. The determination of radiative forcing of CO2 was done using models like this, or the lower resolution versions that are essential parts of all climate models (Global Circulation Models). I can only presume that when you say the model is "... not fitting", you simply do not know what models are used for the theory.

2) You also say that "If CO2 makes up 20% of our greenhouse effect, light from stars at this wavelength should be diminished by 20%". That assumes that absorption is the same at all frequencies, which is false (as can be seen in the first graph). IR astronomers tune the frequency of the observatories to 10 to 13 micron (800 - 1000 cm-1)band where there is minimum absorption by any atmospheric component as seen in the first grap above, and this emission spectrum from the University of Colorado:

By doing so they avoid nearly all of the effect of CO2 and H2O on the incoming light. Despite this, they still need to place their observatories high in the atmosphere (either on mountains, in planes or supported by balloons) or in space to get clear images. So, your fundamental premise that absorption is equal across all IR bands is simply mistaken.

Curiously, Goddard's "IR astronomer" friend refers to the 9.5 micron band as being absorption freed (it is in fact the frequency of maximum absorption and emission by ozone) and describes the actual atmospheric window as being a zone of significant absorption and emission by H2O, showing he does not even grasp the fundamental facts of atmospheric absorption and emission.

3) "Steven Goddard" and his (apparently fictional) source always makes a fundamental misake in examining radiation models. He only examines the so-called back radiation. Because H2O and CO2 emissions overlap, and because H2O is very abundant in the low atmosphere, CO2 emissions make up only a very small percentage of the overall back radiation. That, however, is irrelevant. What controlls the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) is the balance of energy recieved and energy radiated to space. Therefore it is radiation to space from the atmosphere which is the dominant driver of surface temperatures, and hence upper atmosphere concentrations that matter. Because the concentration of H2O is controlled by temperature, and temperatures fall rapidly with altitude, CO2 completely dominates emission to space in frequencies of significant overlap with H2O. Consequently, it is emissions to space that must be examined to determine the relative importance of different atmospheric components.

As an aside, because H2O absorbs in more frequencies it still (along with clouds) accounts for 75% of the total greenhouse effect, with CO2 accounting for 20%. Importantly, H2O varies rapidly with surface temperature, while CO2 varies only slowly. As a result, increasing CO2 will result in a rapid rise in H2O, generating a positive feedback on the CO2 rise. In contrast, a rise in H2O will result in only a small response from CO2, resulting in temperatures and H2O concentrations soon returning to their initial values.

Finally, if you want to examine the basis of greenhouse effect in more detail, but explained very clearly, I recommend my post here. It and the following comments also contain more detail on the first two graphs above.

(Note to the moderator, I know that I am close to the point of dogpilling. If that is a problem, I ask that you retain my post as the only one todate directly addressing the issues raised by fred.steffen (rather than his sources). Thankyou)

Response:

[PS] Tom, thank you for your considered and detailed response. I am sure that will be helpful. However, this is close to dogpiling so no more please.

Mike Sanicola is Morgan Wright. He runs the Hyzer Creek Disk Golf course in New York. His YouTube ID is hyzercreek. "Mike Sanicola" is actually the name of a baseballer who was drafted to the Yankees in 1983, was seriously injured, then went into the ministry.

As Morgan Wright, he claims to be an optometrist. In his most recent YouTube comments, he made the mistake of mixing the two identities, which tipped me off to the Sanicola identity.

He says "I'm an opticist, who specializes in optics and IR. I worked for GE's infrared department and designed infrared telescopes for GE that were used by NASA in outer space. I invented the ambient temperature microbolometer."

Also, no proof yet, but I am beginning to wonder if he is actually Steven Goddard. He regularly links to Goddard's site, and their manner of speech and desire to advertise dual occupations are eerily similar.

the curve relating the CO2 concentration in atmosphere and temperature of lower atmosphere ?

it should be a simple thermodynamic equilibrium wich depends on absorption and emittance parameters,

and yes even with 100% of CO2 the temperature would be finite (because of the Stefan-Boltzmann black body rule which says the irradiance depends of temperature in T4 : the more a body is hot, the more it cools itself by irradiating around)

Can anyone explain how adding CO2 causes a supposed emission from higher altitude and therefore a higher surface temperature? The suggesiton isnt that the earths atmosphere became thicker, with a vertical lapse rate movement, the suggection is that if an emitted photon is now picked up and re-emitted from 100 meters further up this photon has lost energy, and that energy has somehow got back to the surface.

ConcernedCitizen @408, I am sure that nobody can explain it to you, as you have no interest in learning. That, at least, is evident from the straw man you construct. The actual theory is that CO2 in the tropophere at altitude z has less thermal energy than CO2 at altitude z-100 meters. Therefore the total thermal emissions by CO2 at altitude z will be less than that by CO2 at altitude z-100 meters. Individual photons will have approximately the same energy (which is a function of wavelength), but fewer of them will be emitted.

As to why the CO2 has less thermal energy with altitude, a partial answer is that because it is at a higher altitude, it has more gravitational potential energy and less energy of motion (which includes thermal energy). That relationship is further modulated by changes in pressure with altitude (decreasing pressure cools gasses). If you want to know more, you can start reading here.

In your incoherent way, you are actually denying a combination of the first law of thermodynamics, the ideal gas laws, Newton's law of gravitation, and Planck's law. Not a bad score in the science denial stakes.

TomCurtis @409. Putting your insults to one side, what you are talking about it kinetic to radiative change in energy. However, if the CO2 molucule wasnt there, the energy wouldnt even radiate, it would stay as kinetic and remain in the atmosphere.

(This cooling effect of GH gasses at low pressures by kinetic->radiative change is well understood)

Now, if you can answer the question ina civilised maner it would be appreciated.

Response:

[PS] Civility all round would be appreciated. CC it also behoves on you to study the answers and resources suggested to you for understanding if you are asking questions, otherwise people quickly lose patience. If you have not read Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 I suggest you do so and make it clearer whether you contest the Radiative Transfer Equation fundamentals or their particular application in discussions with people here.

You say "If the CO2 molucule wasn't there, the energy wouldn't even radiate. It would stay as kinetic and remain in the atmosphere." That's a bit tricky. (I'm reminded of the rhyme ".../He wasn't there again today/I wish that man would go away." )

So if the CO2 molecule isn't there, where exactly in the atmosphere is this kinetic energy you speak of and how did it get there?

ConcernedCitizen @410, ignoring clouds, the consequence of there being no GHG in the atmosphere (not just CO2) is that there is no IR radiation to space from the atmosphere; but also no absorption by the atmosphere of surface IR radiation. The consequence can be seen in the surface energy balance diagram below:

Specifically, because there is no IR absorption in the atmosphere by your scenario, the 397 W/m^2 IR radiation from the surface would escape to space. On the other hand, there would be no 342 W/m^2 back radiation (thermal down surface), so the incoming energy would be only 240 W/m^2 (Incoming solar minus solar reflected). The resulting energy imbalance of -157 W/m^2 would result in very rapid cooling until the IR radiation from the surface matched the incoming solar (ie, to - 18 C).

Atmospheric IR emission is not a "cooling effect". You can only think it is because you do not take into account all of the related energy exchanges.

The quesiton isnt whether the GH effect exists, it is wether CO2 is saturated as GH gas.

The suggesiton is this: A CO2 mollucule at 6 km radiates a photon upwards. This photon was either radiated out from the surface and stayed as a photon at 15 microns all the way up, and finally, this CO2 molecule was the last one in the chain, and the photon made it out to space.

Or the CO2 mollecule was impacted by an O2, or N2 molecule and thus kinetic to radiative change happened, with the energy of the photon representing the energy at that altitude, ie, temperature.

The proposal here is that an additional CO2 mollucule at 6.1 km causes cooling. HOw so? Lets look at the wto cases. Either the photon was passed up from the surface, and this is the last CO2 mollecule in the chain, in which case it is pased out to space with exactly the same energy as before. Ie, no loss of energy, no warming.

Or, if the photon came from kinetic energy and was radiated out to space, then yes, the energy of the photon would be less, because it represents the temperature at 6.1 km, but if the CO2 mollecule werent there then this radiation wouldnt happen at all and the kinetic energy would have just stayed in the system.

So I dont see how the suggesiotn that 'A CO2 mollecule radiates from higer and colder' means additional energy in the system and hence warming.

"The quesiton isnt whether the GH effect exists, it is wether CO2 is saturated as GH gas."

You say that, but immediately mount an argument that, if valid, would mean there is no greenhouse effect, not that it was saturated.

"The suggesiton is this: A CO2 mollucule at 6 km radiates a photon upwards. This photon was either radiated out from the surface and stayed as a photon at 15 microns all the way up, and finally, this CO2 molecule was the last one in the chain, and the photon made it out to space."

In fact, both of these are true for very small parts (<1% at a guess) of the energy radiated to space by CO2 from the middle to upper troposphere. For most energy, it will have been radiated from the surface (68%), or transferred by latent heat or conduction (18%), or absorbed in the atmosphere from solar radiation (14%). From there, most energy transfers will have been by collisions with other molecules, with transfer to molecules travelling downwards as likely as those to molecules travelling upwards, and with lateral motion of molecules receiving energy as great as either upwards or downwards motion. Most upwards motion will be from emissions from molecules, but (firstly), radiation will be as likely to take energy downwards as up, equally likely to take it laterally as either; and the molecules radiating the energy are more likely to be H2O molecules in the lower troposphere than CO2 molecules (and hence have a different, but lower energy content per photon than that eventually radiated to space by CO2). Of course, some of the radiation will have been by radiated by other greenhouse gases (CH4, NO2, O3, etc) which typically have a higher energy content per photon than that radiated by CO2. Of course, energy radiated by a greenhouse gas other than CO2 will have to be absorbed by that same greenhouse gas (except for a small amount radiated by H2O) and then transferred to CO2 by collisions (probably mediated by collisions with N2 and O2). Even energy transferred by radition from CO2 and absorbed by CO2 will have different energies to that finally radiated to space because of doppler energy shifts, and pressure broadening (and a couple of other effects).

The net consequence of this is that:

1) Of the energy finally radiated to space by a single CO2 molecule, not all will have come by the same pathway except in very rare cases;

2) The energy finally radiated by CO2 to space will typical have followed a very convoluted pathway through the atmosphere, spending almost as much time travelling downwards as upwards, and twice as much time travelling laterally as either downwards or upwards (with different parts of the energy travelling different paths as per (1));

and (most importantly)

3) Because the lower layers of the atmosphere are warmer, and hence radiate more energy, and downward radiation is as probable as upward radiation at all levels of the atmosphere, the majority of energy entering the atmosphere (59%) will follow a convoluted path that returns it to the Earth's surface.

The upshot is that the convoluted pathway of energy from the surface introduced by the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere serves as a filter limiting the escape of energy to space. There is a bias in that filter caused by the lower temperatures at higher altitudes which means that less than 50% of the energy escapes to space.

Unfortunately for your theory, none of this fits your simplistic analysis. In your analysis, either all radiation is upward only, in which case all energy emitted from the surface escapes to space without impediment. And indeed, if all radiation was upwards only, there could be no greenhouse effect - but such a situation is unphysical.

Alternatively, on your second scenario, energy is transfered upwards by collisions and IR radiation from the upper troposphere reduces the thermal energy relative to the case with no greenhouse gases: but you neglect that the lack of greenhouse gases also reduces the introduction of energy into the atmosphere by absorption of thermal radiation from the surface, with the absorbed IR radiation from the surface being much greater than the emitted radiation from the upper atmosphere.So, while the IR radiation to space cools the atmosphere, the IR absorption from the surface warms it at a much faster rate.

In both scenarios, you ignore essential features of the system in order to draw obtuse conclusions.

Not wanting to create a long thread, and to keep it trelevant to the theory postulasted here, I focused on heat transfer space, not from the surface and not internally, so it wasnt a refutation of the GH effect at all.

" but you neglect that the lack of greenhouse gases also reduces the introduction of energy into the atmosphere by absorption of thermal radiation from the surface, with the absorbed IR radiation from the surface being much greater than the emitted radiation from the upper atmosphere"

At the top of the atmosphere, where the additional CO2 mollecules are now radiating at higher altitude, you have said that less than 1% of energy is direct radiation from the surface which contradicts this statement.

"if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space"

Why? If it isnt direct radiation from the surface (in which case the energy is maintained regardless of what altitude its radiated at, and is very rare (free path lenght and all that)) then its a kinetic-radiative change of energy.

So, if a colision happens with CO2 at 6km and is radiated to space the photon's energy represents the temperature at 6km.

Add more CO2 and now more of the collisions happen at 6.1km with the photon's energy representing the temperature at that altitude.

This doesnt mean there is more heat in the system.

Better to say that adding more CO2 turns kinetic energy at 6.1 km into photons which have an even chance of being emitted towards the surface. ie, more GH gas = more back radiaiton.

Taking the Feldmanpaper data from the paper above, and using 370 and 390 ppm for CO2 at 2000 and 2010 MODTRAN gives a 0.3 wm^-2 forcing change, which isnt far off fro the Feldman value, so I am not doubting CO2 as a GH gas or CO2 non-saturation just that the mechanism proposed here isnt feasible.

Add CO2 and now we have

Look, I am not saying CO2 is saturated, but the mechanism proposed here doesnt hold water when you pull it apart, and you certainly havent explained it, all you have done is explain the GH effect.

Response:

[RH] Removed excess blank space. Concerned Citizen, the process has been explained to you in a very detailed and accurate manner. You're skating on this ice at the moment.

Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

Link to the commenting policy is just above the comment window.

[PS] The detailed process with the maths is in the Ramanathan and Coakley paper pointed to earlier. Do you dispute that paper?

Frankly ConcernedCitizen has amply demonstrated his refusal to think clearly about this topic. I am no longer going to waste my time on him. When he is so wrapped up in his own "wisdom" that he does not recognize the air at 6.1 km is thinner than that at 6.0 km, and that consequently his own counterexample proves the claim he is disputing, it is completly pointless to continue any discussion. (Romans 1:22 applies.)

Air at 6,1 km is thinner, I now that, I already said its colder. How does putting an additional CO2 mollecule there cause warming? By changing kinetic into radiative energy and radiating it downwards.

The suggestion that there is a kind of 'CO2 lapse rate' just doesnt fit.

Response:

[JH] Moderation complaint snipped.

Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commenters repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

It is too bad that you have alienated Tom Curtis. He generally is patient with learners and provides lots of data to support the consensus.

You need to step back and address one of your misconceptions at a time. When you list 5 or 6 misconceptions in a single post it is difficult to respond without a major post. You need to read the OP again and see what you misunderstand.

The increase in the radiation altitude causes the Earth to warm because of the temperature lapse rate. As you go higher in the atmosphere it gets colder. When the emission altitude is increased, less energy is emitted because it is colder. In order to reach equilibrium, the temperature must increase at 6.1 km so that the emitted energy equals the energy incoming from the Sun. Because the temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere stays the same, in order for the temperature to increase at 6.1 km, the surface has to warm also.

If you still do not understand why increasing emission altitude causes the surface to warm post again here. Do not add additional questions until we establish this description of the increase in temperature.

This is NOT the correct explanation of the saturation of CO2 absorption of IR radiation. The fact is that the effect IS saturated at the resonant frequency of bending of a CO2 molecule (wave number 667).

However molecules CAN absorb radiation at frequencies that don't match the resonant frequency, albeit with a lower probability of absorption.

IR radiation at the resonant frequency has a mean free path of just over 30 cm with the current CO2 concentration. So almost all of that radiation makes it back to the ground. In fact that frequency becomes saturated at only a couple of parts per million.

A rough rule of thumb is that the probability of absorption reduces to about 10% for every 5% change in IR frequency. So the mean free path is multiplied by 10. So IR radiation which differs in frequency from the resonant frequency by 20% has a mean free path of about 3 km. At these altitudes the calculation is complicated by the thinning atmosphere, so the mean free path would actually be somewhat longer than that.

The effect of adding more CO2 is to reduce the mean free path of IR radiation at ALL frequencies. This has the effect of widening the band of frequencies that attain absorption saturation.

This is called BAND SATURATION. It is the widening of the band of frequencies that achieve saturation that causes the greenhouse effect to increase as more CO2 is added. And mathematically, it explains why the temperature effect increases logarithmically with CO2 concentration (ie. a constant temperature increase for every doubling of CO2 concentration).

I strongly suggest you change your article to reflect this science.

Response:

[RH] All caps is against policy. Please take the time to read our commenting policies before you continue.

braintic @419, thankyou for your clear, and accurate exposition of the band saturation effect. That is a genuine effect that is described very clearly by David Archer in Chapter 4 of his book, Climate Change: Understanding the Forecast (available online here); and also by Riccardo in the advanced version of the rebutal to the myth. The reason band saturation is presented as the advanced rebutal, while increased effective altitude of radiation is presented as the rebutal of the "CO2 is saturated" myth is that band saturation is a subtle consequence of the fundamental effect of the increasing altitude of radiation in an atmosphere in which the stratosphere warms with altitude (something I will explain in more detail below). In an atmosphere with a cooling stratosphere with altitude, there would be no band saturation - and the greenhouse effect would be stronger as a result.

You are clear that increasing CO2 causes increasing warming, but you appear to miss the fact that the myth is not about band saturation, but rather the myth is a claim that CO2 is saturated across all bands, and that this means increasing CO2 concentration will cause no warming. Given that Skeptical Science targets its basic explanations to those who have studied no science since their 10th year of education, you will understand that a basic rebutal saying that "CO2 is band saturated, but not saturated" is likely to generate confusion. Hence, the basic rebutal concentrates on the fundamental mechanism, while more advanced rebutals deal with the more subtle effects and refer those who are interested to more detailed explanations.

In any event, the theory of the greenhouse effect is fundamentally a theory about the energy balance between the Earth and space (including radiation from the Sun). It follows that the relevant altitude at which to determine "saturation" is not from the surface, but from space (effectively 70 km altitude). At 70 km, the mean free path for the resonant frequency of CO2 is not just over 30 cm, but effectively infinite in a tangent to the Earth, or approximately 35 Km vertically towards the Earth's surface. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere decreases that downward, vertical mean free path, and hence the distance IR radiation from the Sun can penetrate the atmosphere from space. In more standard terms for climate science, adding CO2 reduces the optical depth of the atmosphere. (Note that I am not saying "mean free path" and "optical depth" are the same thing. They are not. But they are related concepts, and the later is most commonly used in discussing the issue in climate science.)

Because the mean free path downward from space has decreased at the resonant frequency, by Kirchoff's Law the mean altitude of radiation to space increases. That is because, altitude determined by mean free path downward is also the mean altitude of radiation to space, but while the former is measured from the notional boundary to space, the later is measured from the surface. Further, the same effect will be experienced at all frequencies in which CO2 absorbs IR radiation, and therefore also over the average of all thermal IR frequencies. Thus, when speaking of the effect of adding CO2, a simpler way of saying what happens is to say:

"So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced."

Of course, while it is generally true that as we get higher in Earth's atmosphere, it gets cooler, it is not true in either the tropopause or the stratosphere:

That means that for those frequencies of CO2 absorption where the mean free path from the nominal edge of space places the mean level of radiation to space in the tropopause, increasing CO2 will not change the temperature of the gas radiating to space, and therefore not change the energy radiated to space at that frequency. At the resonant frequency of CO2, the mean altitude of radiation to space is in the stratosphere, so that increasing CO2, all else being equal, would result in more radiation to space. As it happens, not all else is equal and that excess CO2 cools the stratosphere on a very short time scale (hours) so in practise the effect is minimal change in the radiation to space. At the wings of the CO2 absorption band, however, the mean altitude of radiation to space is in the troposphere. Consequently raising the mean altitude of radiation to space decreases IR energy transmitted to space at that frequency until the mean altitude of radiation to space reaches the tropopause.

It follows from this that the band saturation effect represents a saturation of the energy radiated to space as the mean altitude of radiation to space enters the tropopause for given frequencies. It does not represent optical saturation (as it would need to be relevant to the myth). Rather, it represents a stable level of radiation to space due to the mean altitude of radiation to space at a given frequency being in the tropopause.

It should be noted that H2O (due to precipitating out rapidly with increased altitude) and other greenhouse gases (due to relatively low concentration) do not have this effect. Their mean altitude of radiation is firmly in the troposphere and increasing concentrations do not lead to band saturation for that reason. The one exception is stratospheric ozone, and stratospheric H2O (introduced by jet fuel). Because both are in the stratosphere, increased altitude increases thermal radiation to space.

michael sweet @418 Yes, I know about the temperature lapse rate, didnt 'Air at 6,1 km is thinner, I now that, I already said its colder' make that self evident?

So far not one of you has been able to describe the physics, the mechanical process, whereby putting an additional CO2 mollecule at 6.1 km raisies temperature by interaction wioth the lapse rate.

The lapse rate is based on atmospheric pressure, so if you added enough CO2, yes, you would increase the atmorpheric pressure, but this isnt the suggestion here and certainly isnt hapening because atmopspheric pressure isnt increasing.

So again, in the absence of any logical and clear explanaiton the explanation given here holds no water.

Response:

[JH] If you cannot be civil, you will forfeit your privilege of posting comments on this site.

The temperature lapse rate is the amount the temperature changes as you increase altitude. It is about 6C per kilometer. That means that if you increase in altitude by one kilometer the air is 6C cooler.

Essentially all the energy emitted by the Earth is at the 6.0 km altitude. This amount of energy equals the amount of energy that arrives each day from the sun. If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than the CO2 absorbs more of the energy coming up from the surface. The emission height raises to 6.1 km. This we have agreed on.

Heat is emitted from all materials in amounts proportional to the temperature. When the emission height increases to 6.1 km, less energy is emitted because the air is colder. This is because of the temperature change, not the change in pressure. There is an imbalance between what is arriving from the sun and what is emitted. This imbalance causes the Earth to heat up.

In order to reach a new equilibrium where the heat emitted from the atmosphere is the same as the heat arriving from the sun the temperature at 6.1 km has to increase. Because the lapse rate remains the same, the temperatue of the entire air column under 6.1 km increases the same amount as it increases at 6.1 km. Since the lapse rate is 6C per km the temperature has to increase about 0.6 C if the emission altitude increases from 6.0 to 6.1 km. When the rest of the air column increases in temperature the surface is 0.6C warmer. This is the global warming caused by the increase in CO2.

Do you understand the way that the increase in the emitting altitude (caused by the increase in CO2) results in an increase in the surface temperature?

The atmospheric pressure does not increase measurably from the increase in CO2. This is well known and no-one has suggested that atmospheric pressure changes the temperature. This is an example of a basic misunderstanding that needs to be corrected.

michael sweet @422, I strongly suspect your attempt to answer Concerned Citizen's question will be fruitless. The evidence strongly suggests he is interested in obfustication rather than learning. That is clear from his continuous changing of the question he asks, and he refusal to accept any response as accurate or relevant (despite the responses to his questions having been both).

In attempting to answer Concerned Citizen, however, you stated that "Essentially all the energy emitted by the Earth is at the 6.0 km altitude". That is not correct. The "effective mean altitude of radiation" is approximately 6 km, but the effective mean altitude of radiation is just that altitude in the troposphere at which the globally averaged temperature is the same as the brightness temperature of the IR radiation from Earth, averaged globally and across all frequencies. That that is not the same as the altitude from which essentially all radiation is radiated is most easilly seen by comparing the 6 km temperature to brightness radiation of emission from real observations (in this case averaged over April to June from the Central Pacific for two seperate years, see Harries et al, 2001)

Note that the spike at 1050 cm^-1 is from stratospheric ozone, and is at a much higher altitude than other emissions shown. The central spike from CO2 emissions at 667 cm^-1 is not shown as the graph cuts of at 700 cm^-1.

Just looking at brightness temperatures, unfortunately, will give a mistaken impression as to the effective mean altitude of radiation, as brightness temperatures do not show the intensity of radiation at different wave numbers. For that we need a more traditional emissions spectrum:

In this case we have two such spectra, a clear sky spectrum and one from a thunderstorm anvil. Many cloud spectra will be from lower altitudes. It can be seen, however, how the combination of maximum intensity of surface emission near the CO2 absorption band, combined with the effects of clouds result in an "effective mean altitude of radiation" at around 6 km.

I am fairly certain you knew all this already, but your choice of words leads to an easy misunderstanding, and IMO one that would create confusion if not clarrified.

I was hoping that if I made an error that you would step in and correct it. Your summary is correct.

As I understand it, there is a great deal of variation in how radiation gets into space Your post above at 412 shows a small atmospheric window where some IR gets through the atmosphere from the surface. Other wavelengths have different efective mean altitudes of emission depending on how efficiently they are absorbed/radiated by the active molecules. The tropics is different from the Arctic and desert is different from the ocean covered areas. Your post includes all these details.

I meant the "essentially" to summarize all that information and your post at 423 into a single sentence. For the most basic explaination of the greenhouse effect if we assume that all radiation is emitted at 6 km than the explaination of increasing emission height affecting surface temperature is simplified. After one uderstands the basics of how temperature increases due to increasing emission height than the additional details you relate in 423 can be added.

You may be correct that the details are required, but I think it helps to understand the basics by simplifing the complex details. I think here we only differ in what we think is the proper way to simply explain how the greenhouse effect works (and your posts have much better graphics than mine). For more advanced readers (who read but do not comment) your post gives them additional detail so that they understand the effect better than my simplification.

Following up my earlier question regarding CO2 isotopomers and absorption saturation, I get the idea that IR absorption is saturated from, among other sources, the article above "Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure." This is not saying the CO2 effect is saturated - there are good arguments and evidence that it isn't - but I am wondering if the minor isotopomers' IR and lower-energy absorption fall within or outside the spectrally-saturated bands. Or perhaps I should use "opaque" instead of "saturation" when asking about absorption spectral lines/bands?

I understand you're saturation point now. Just be aware of your phrasing because this is often used by climate deniers to suggest there is no greenhouse effect. Relative to your questions about other bands outside of the 667cm-1 range, I think most of the other bands are overwhelmed by WV. It's that 667 window which has the primary scattering effect.

David Thorn @425, the specific absorption frequencies for different isotopologues of CO2 are available at Hitran (requires registration to download data). The difference in isotopes will make a difference, if only because the different isotopes will have a different velocity distribution at different temperatures due to differences in mass, and hence different doppler broadening patterns. This can be illustrated by this listing of relevant frequencies of a particular transition for different isotopologues:

Note that the transition in question is at too high a frequency to be relevant to the atmospheric greenhouse effect, but the small differences shown are likely to be typical at lower frequencies as well, although I have not specifically checked.

In any event, Hitran allows the downloading of a composite absorption spectrum for all isotopologues of CO2 at relative concentrations as found in the atmosphere; and it is likely that this is the data used in LBL models of radiation. Broad band models of radiation, and Global Circulation Models typically use lower resolution data in which the differences are not likely to be significant.

When you make posts with many questions if in impossible to answer them all in detail. Please ask one question at a time so that they can be answered. After the first misconception is cleared up we can then move on to the next misconception.

I will take a single example form your post to Tom Curtis. You claim:

"The only way to increase temperature of a radiating body, is to increase the temperature of the heat source heating it. And an increase in temperature always have to be initiated by a rising temperature of the radiating body, never by a decreasing temperature (and decreasing intensity) in a colder body heated by the hotter radiating body."

When I got out of bed this morning it was cold. I put on a cold shirt. My surface temeprature increased even though my rate of heat production remained the same. This is experimental evidence that your clain that " an increase in temperature always have to be initiated by a rising temperature of the radiating body" is incorrect.

It appears that you have a basic misunderstanding of how heat is transferred. I suggest you reread the posts you have questioned, and the OP, and ask questions about what seems off to you. Ask about one or two imortant items first. As those misconceptions are cleared up you will start to understand the basics. When you have the basics incorrect it is impossible to understand how the atosphere works.

"If the altitude of emission is increased, it means that a larger volume absorbs heat from the surface. Your argument is based on that this increase in volume is caused by an increase of a powerful heat absorber."

First, while the second sentence is entirely ungrammatical and difficult to interpret, if I interpret it as saying, "Your argument is based on [the fact] that this increase in volume is caused by an increase of a powerful heat absorber" your claim is false, and you have not understood my argument, or its basis at all. It is clear that it misrepresents my argument in that I limit the discussion to situations in which the mean altitude of radiation to space is lower than the tropopause. If it rises to the tropopause (and assuming the temperature structure with altitude remains constant), further increases will initially have no effect in temperature, and then reduce the Global Mean Surface Temperature. That despite the fact that the volume of gas below the mean altitude of radiation to space will continue to increase. In practise, the same increases in CO2 that increases the mean altitude in radiation to space will also cool the stratosphere, and sufficient CO 2 increase to raise the mean altitude of radiation to space into the current stratosphere may well cool the stratosphere sufficiently that it has a declining temperature with altitude, in which case that will result in further surface warming.

This discussion should make it very clear that my argument is based on the temperature of the mean altitude of radiation to space, something laid out very specifically in my article on the topic. I suggest you move further discussion of that particular point to that article, and make sure you read it before you do.

I will note that on rereading my comment from which you took the quotation, it was very clear and very specific. Your misinterpretation has no justification in the text, and is based entirely on your attempt to shoe horn that discussion into your very rudimentary grasp of physics. If you are going to persist in that behaviour, save us all some time and end the discussion now.

2)

"The only way to increase temperature of a radiating body, is to increase the temperature of the heat source heating it."

If you have a radiant filament (such as in a light bulb) fed with a constant power source, and with a constant resistance, but place that filament in a gas that gradually corrodes its surface, thereby reducing emissivity, the filament will increase in temperature over time even though the amount of energy radiated will remain constant. That is a common place experience in cold climates where low emissivity films are placed over windows to increase the internal temperature while decreasing the power used in heating.

This is an analog the the greenhouse effect in which the increase in CO2 reduces the effective emissivity of the Earth over time in the IR bandwidth while not reducing the emissivity in visible light bandwidths (and therefore not decreasing the incoming energy). The result will be that:

When we compare the quasi-eqilibrium states before and after the introduction of the increased CO2:

1) The IR radiation to space will be the same in both cases (ignoring albedo feedbacks);

2) A reduced proportion of the IR radiation to space will come from CO2 because the CO2 will be radiating to space from a higher, and hence (typically colder) altitude;

3) Therefore the IR radiation from other components of the system, particularly the surface, will have to increase to compensate for that shortfall;

4) The only way for them to increase will be through a rise in temperature.

In the interval between when the first quasi-equilibrium state is perturbed by the addition of CO2 and reaching the second quasi-equilibrium state:

a) Total IR radiation will be decreased (ignoring albedo feedbacks);

b) The resulting energy imbalance will result in an increase in temperature over time; and

c) The time between the two quasi-equilibrium states will be a function of the heat capacity of the system (most of which is in the ocean) and the cumulative energy imbalance in the interval todate.

"Give me a source supporting a claim that heat is transferred from the freezing fluid to the hotter surface. In what other situations do you experience heat coming from low temperature fluids?"

In the theory of the greenhouse effect, all heat (ie, net energy flow) is from:

1) The Sun to the Earth's atmosphere and surface, with the vast majority going to the surface;

2) From the Earth's surface to the atmosphere and to space, with the majority going to the atmosphere; and

3) From the atmosphere to space.

In each case, the net energy flow is from a warmer to a colder object. If you do not think this is the case, you simply do not understand the theory. Period. This is so important that I would put it in all caps were that not forbidden by the comments policy.

And if you do not understand the theory, learn to understand it before you pretend to criticize it!

You will certainly doubt my claim about the direction of energy flow in the greenhouse theory. Very well. Here is the Earth's energy budget as determined by NASA:

It shows energy flows from the Sun, to and from the surface, to and from the atmosphere, and to space. Sum the energy flow across any boundary between the Earth and the Atmosphere, and the Atmosphere and Space and you will find the incoming and outgoing energy are approximately equal, with only a 0.6 W/m^2 net imbalance. Sum the energy flows between any warmer and colder object, and you ill find more energy flows from the warmer to the colder object than the reverse.

Attn moderators: I have no strong interest in playing whack-a-mole on these issues again with somebody who cannot bother actually learning the theory they purport to criticize. Would you please restrict bogfetto's responses to just this issue until such time that he acknowledges the simple truth, or proves he is incapable of doing so by excessive repetition. At your discretion, I will shift the discussion to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics thread, where it is far more on topic.

Response:

[JH] Bugfotto has relinquishd his privilege of posting comments on this site.

But the atmosphere does not move freely into outer space. Only trivial amounts of atmosphere escape to space. So outer space is the equivalent of the shirt. The atmosphere is the equivalent of the air inside the shirt. The atmosphere insulates the surface from the cold of space. The air trapped inside the shirt insulates the skin from the cold of the air outside the shirt.

Tom Dayton @440, that is not an improvement of the analogy. Specifically, the air between the shirt and the skin quickly obtains the same temperature as the skin, which does not occur in the atmosphere. A better defense of the analogy is to point out that there is a temperture gradient within the fabric of the shirt, with the inner most layer of the shirt being skin temperature, and the outermost layer being room temperature. That is, as bogfetto points out, because of the restricted circulation of air within the shirt - but such restricted circulation is not necessary to set up a temperature gradient, and thereby an insulating effect. Specifically, the troposphere also has a distinct energy gradient which is a product of the inefficiency of energy transfer within the atmosphere. Absent convection, it would be even more inefficient and the surface temperature would be higher (as shown by Manabe). If the atmosphere were perfectly efficient at transfering energy, as appears to be assumed by bogfetto, then the temperature of the atmosphere would be constant with altitude.

This picture shows at least three layers of the atmosphere that do not mix. This disproves the wild claim that the atmsosphere "moves freely"

Heat is ony transferred slowly by wind and thermals through the troposphere. Uninformed people think it is fast because they do not consider how big the Earth is. Wind takes days to cross even the distance across a single ocean. It takes weeks and months to transfer energy to the Arctic from the equator. The Atmosphere has many layers that do not freely mix. IR transfer of heat is much faster than thermal transfer. IR heat is blocked by CO2, causing greenhouse warming.

Bogfetto,

Please provide data to support your wild claim that the atmosphere "moves freely" at a rate that is significant to release of energy from the top of the atmosphere. I have provided data showing that the atmosphere does not freely mix to a significant extent.

Response:

[JH] Bugfotto has relinquishd his privilege of posting comments on this site.

I am having trouble following an argument that doesn't take into account the mass of the individual gases. CO2 weighs almost three times what oxygen does and takes up two thirds the space. Direct tests have shown a sharp drop in CO2 with altitude. At the tropopause there is a sharp drop of CO2 presence into the stratosphere demonstrating that while mixing may occur in the heavier, lower, atmosphere the fact that CO2 is a heavier component is still there and CO2 is still much higher near the ground than higher. In the heavier troposphere most of the transmission of heat is due to conduction and not radiation. This leaves one wondering why we are even considering 100 ppm change in a minority gas, that has a lower heat content than other gases, being considered as any sort of problem.

If you look at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v221/n5185/abs/2211040a0.html you will see that through direct measurements there is a 3-5 ppm step from the tropopause to the stratosphere. The stratosphere starts at about 15 km altitude and that step is not shown on that graph of yours. I would therefore question that source.

And in any case isn't the more important point that the lower atmosphere transfers heat more in conduction mode that radiation? If this is so we can assume that heat is reaching the upper atmosphere via the entire atmosphere and not any specific gas. Once above the cloud levels it would appear that the lower latent heat content of CO2 and Tom Curtis' explantion of heat radiation would be more applicable.

I would also question Michael Sweet's idea that the atmosphere doesn't have large scale mixing by showing unusual conditions of atmospheric layering.

This graph, originally posted above at 430 (and many other locations) by Tom Curtis,

shows that only 20% of energy transfer in the Troposphere is from conduction and latent energy according to measured data. Please provide a reference to support your claim that " the lower atmosphere transfers heat more in conduction mode that radiation". Since measured data indicates that the majority of energy is transferred by radiation, CO2 is indeed more important than conduction.

Mixing is very slow compared to radiation transfer of energy. The atmosphere is always layered. Look at the clouds. Many days there are two or three (or more) layers of clouds. The first picture is visible on any long airplane trip.

A change of 4 ppm at the Tropopause is too small to be visible on the graphs Rob Honeycutt posted. It is an insignificant change. It was an interesting factoid for me to learn. The scientists who study the atmosphere undoubtedly already know this factoid.

Wake @436, I would certainly be interested in a citation of the scientific article from which you conclude that at"... the tropopause there is a sharp drop of CO2 presence into the stratosphere ...". I am aware of Georgii and Jost (1969) who find a "quite sudden change of about 3–5 p.p.m. CO2 is usually observed at the transition from tropospheric into stratospheric air and vice versa". I am also aware of Bischof et al (1980) and there conclusion that "...the CO2 mixing ratio is not constant with altitude but rather decreases in the stratosphere, by about 7 p.p.m.v., between the tropopause and 33 km", along with their speculation that the variation is because "...recently increased concentrations of CO2 in the troposphere have not propagated far into the stratosphere". I am further aware that up to the mesopause, CO2 concentrations stay within 16 ppmv of contemporary surface values:

My problem is that none of these seem qualified as "a sharp drop". Indeed, even the 16 ppmv difference between the tropopause and the mesopause represents only a difference in radiative forcing of 0.2 W/m^2 if it were applied across the whole atmosphere. It applies, however, not across the whole atmosphere but over that part which has an optical depth of less than one, ie, were IR radiation typically escapes straight to space with the consequence of minimal further impact on the greenhouse effect.

Regardless of impact on the greenhouse effect, the fact that CO2 concentrations at 80 Km altitude are a close approximation of those at 10 Km altitude refutes the idea that there is significant gravitational sorting of concentration below the thermosphere. That is further refuted by Aoki et al (2003) who show from d13C concentrations that:

"This quantitative agreement of Δδ13C/ΔCO2 indicates that the vertical profiles of CO2 concentration and δ13C observed in the lower stratosphere over Japan, Scandinavia and Antarctica were thought to be formed by the height-dependent poleward transport of tropospheric air intruded into the stratosphere in the tropical region."

Rather, it shows energy transfers across the surface/atmosphere and atmosphere/space boundaries. It does not show the relative proportions of energy transport at any particular altitude (or averaged across all altitudes) within the troposphere. The former because that will change with altitude, and the later because of its design.

Further, even if it did show the proportion of the energy transfer mix within the troposphere, the relevant values would be net radiant energy transfer (57.9 W/m^2) vs energy transfer by convection (86.4 W/m^2) and latent heat transfer (18.4 W/m^2) giving respective percentages of 35.6%, 53.1% and 11.3%.

Wake, your link points to a non-peer reviewed article with questionable conclusions, not to raw data as implied by your description of it as "actual measurements".

I will let more knowledgeable people comment on the alleged science in the article, but the article has not even been edited by someone who speaks English as their first language. If an article is to be taken seriously, proof-reading it is a minimum first step, followed by peer review.

1) If you are going to say "actual measurements are a lot more indicative of the real world than computer modeling" you should at least point me to actual measurements rather than just a crude mathematical model (which is what Nahle's calculations amount to).

2) Nahle uses surface values for CO2 and H2O concentration. Therefore, even if calculated correctly, he would only be calculating relative emissivity for back radiation at the surface - not the effective emissivity for radiation to space which is the basis of the greenhouse effect. Therefore, the best that can be said for Nahle's calculations is that he simply does not understand the theory of the greenhouse effect.

3) Nahle uses the formula for the emissivity of a 128.2:1 H2O/CO2 isothermal gas mixture. Therefore, at best all he shows is that if the an isothermal gas in a container was 100% water vapour, adding 0.78% CO2 would reduce the emissivity of the gas mixture relative to the 100% water vapour. He goes on to demonstrate that adding oxygen to the H2O/CO2 mixture would further reduce emissivity. The obvious point is that if adding oxygen to a H2O/CO2 mix decreases emissivity, adding a H2O/CO2 mix to an oxygen atmosphere will increase emissivity. That is, it will induce a greenhouse effect. For a more detailed exposition of this point, go here.

To summarize, Nahle's calculations do not apply to the atmosphere as a whole because it is not isothermal; do not calculate the strength of the greenhouse effect because they apply to the surface layer only, and cannot calculate the effect of the change in outgoing radiation due to the presence or absense of a gas; and are incorrectly applied in any event. Worse, they are not observations and do not produce an observationally testable hypothesis with regard to atmospheric radiation. In contrast, the theory he wishes to rebut is based on models that apply the type of formula he is using radiation band by radiation band, layer by layer across a large number of layers in the atmosphere, each of which is small enough to be approximately isothermal. Those models produce observationally testable predictions which have been compared to actual observations as with this example from 1969:

Those detailed, band by band, layer by layer models also predict a greenhouse effect from CO2.

The denialist paper you link to is actually five years old now, one of a number of crazy climatological ideas promulgated by Nasif Nahle. Concerning that particular paper, Walter Hannah of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab addressed Nasif Nahle’s Shaky Math last year.

Considering the rebuttals by Tom Curtis @447 and by Walter Hannah at MA Rodger's link @448, the paper linked by Wake appears to be incredibly poorly conceived... But even if its flaws were more difficult to spot, it should be clear that any valid paper disproving the greenhouse effect would make its author both rich and famous. Not only would the author become the new darling of the Koch Bros, touring the world giving triumphant defences of BAU fossil-fuel policy, the author would collect the Nobel Prize and all the other accolades befitting a genuine Galileo who had successfully overturned decades of understanding. Instead, the paper remains deservedly unpublished and largely obscure, and not even the denialists have bothered funding a round of much-needed editing for this paper. Thus, even for those unable or unwilling to follow the scientific rebuttal, there are ample clues that this is nonsense. Wake might want to consider what it is about his own world views that made him miss those clues.

Nahle's incompetence isn't confined to how the greenhouse effect actually works.He has claimed (nearly halfway down this page) that this sequence of pictures proves that Mars was warming between 1995 and 2005 because the polar caps were shrinking, implying that it must be the sun.He apparently didn't understand (or forgot to tell his readers!) that each picture was taken a little more than one Martian year after the previous one, and that the changes in the polar caps are almost entirely due to seasons! (more on that in the thread Mars is warming)A similar sequence at 13 months intervals of the Arctic from September 2005 to March 2012 would seemingly show a nearly 3-fold increase in sea ice extent, but we know what really happened in September 2012, don't we?